Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

All under threes should be cared for at home?

162 replies

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:10

Two varying opinions in a magazine I have read recently;
First by Oliver James
Right now, being a stay at home mum has a lower status than that of a streetsweeper. The current government has pursued policies that encourage more parents of young children to enter the workplace and put demands of their careers before the needs of the children...... There is little question that children under three should be cared for by one person who knows them well. Toddlers need to feel secure that their needs will be met, and that they will be loved later in life. In my view, what we need is a less consumerist society, where both parents do not feel compelled to work during these amazing years. That means rethinking both our workaholism and our materialism.

Second by Joanna Grigg
It would be foolish not to keep your foot in the door re your career: nearly half of all mums will end up as single parents .....part time workers camn be seen as ineffective...working mums feel alienated and undervalued...the bulk of research shows that nursery doesn't harm children, the real issue being that your child feels loved and you don't have to be a sahm for this.

OP posts:
mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:12

I thought this would make an interesting discussion!
Personally, I am a sahm because that's what I wanted to do, but I also have many friends and family who are working mothers and they feel this is the right thing to do.
Where do you stand?

OP posts:
mumblechum · 08/01/2008 11:12

I'm with Joanna Grigg.

Have always been PT, if I had stayed at home all day I def. would have gone up the walls.

Hulababy · 08/01/2008 11:12

I think it is madness. All these reports and surveys, one after another, all contradicting one another. Makes you wonder how much money is wasted doing it all!

What is right for one family is not necessarily right for another family. So long as mum, dad, baby and siblings are happy, then that is all that is important.

beansprout · 08/01/2008 11:13

The interesting point is how likely we are to become single parents at some point and trying to make provision for that too.

Most parents that work don't rush back because they can't bear their kids, it's more a case of having to pay a mortgage etc so I don't think that many of us have the luxury of this debate.

Pollyanna · 08/01/2008 11:13

I remember that Penelope Leach also thought that under 3s should be looked after by one person - but she thought this could be a nanny or childminder (nursery being better for over 3s).

Hulababy · 08/01/2008 11:14

I do however think that the Governm,ent should encourage those parents who do want to stay home with their babies and not pressurise them back into work. But also vice versa - that those who want/need to work are supported too.

bossykate · 08/01/2008 11:14

oliver james is a twunk. why isn't he staying at home with his kids instead of writing crapola???

bossykate · 08/01/2008 11:14

well quite beansprout. and there is no evidence that high quality childcare is bad for under threes...

Dinosaur · 08/01/2008 11:15

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

TheGoatofBitterness · 08/01/2008 11:16

thank god dd is nearly 4 and i can stop thinking about this (so much). basically we are all evil ruinators of our children. obviously teh best solution would be if we all died in childbirth and oliver james could look after ALL the pre-schoolers while living in a large shoe.

Mommalove · 08/01/2008 11:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

SueBaroo · 08/01/2008 11:18

Are the two quotes actually saying anything substantively different?

Walnutshell · 08/01/2008 11:19

This continually arises as a big, unresolved debate because fitting work around children was not an employment concern before women entered the (paid) workplace in large numbers. Now it is largely debated as an issue for women to resolve within themselves rather than within society at large. So I can agree with both Oliver James and Joanna Grigg but realise that, sadly, it will be a debate than women continue to struggle with for the foreseeable future and while women continue to take ownership of the problem, I can't see much hope for change.

Walnutshell · 08/01/2008 11:20

TheGoat !!!

FioFio · 08/01/2008 11:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

motherinferior · 08/01/2008 11:23

Oliver dearest, my children were cared for by someone who loved them until they were three: their lovely childminder, who has just texted me to say she misses DD2 (who started school yesterday). Whereas I'd have gone off my nut with them.

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:24

Sue Baroo, I think one is saying that that under threes should be cared for at home and one is saying that nursery doesn't harm them

OP posts:
Pollyanna · 08/01/2008 11:27

Oliver James is saying that under 3s should be cared for by one person, not that it needs to be the mother/father.

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:27

The people who don't have the luxry of this debate-so would you stay at home if it was financially viable or is it important for to work?

OP posts:
SSSandy2 · 08/01/2008 11:28

Generally speaking I agree that for most dc staying at home would be best. Imo though SOME dc between 2-3 would benefit from the increased social interaction with a wider group that they get at nursery.

However what homes are we talking about here? Some homes are desperate filthy dumps and I think the dc would benefit from getting out of them for a bit. How about homes with a depressed parent who lacks energy, wouldn't those dc benefit from organised activities (singing, painting, art work) at a nursery which their own dp couldn't realistically get the energy up for?

How about homes where the tv is blasting all day? Or homes where there are dp smoking all day around the dc or where there are substance dependent adults or violent adults even or adults who just lose it all day with the dc and scream at them?

I don't think it is ALWAYS best for them to be at home.

Also too if you have no choice in the matter, what is the point in making dp feel bad about it? If they have to work, they have to and rubbing it in isn't making anything better.

motherinferior · 08/01/2008 11:28

Fathers have always been in the fecking workplace, haven't they?

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:29

Pollyanna, the title of his piece was all children under three should be cared for at home - but I don't think he is really saying that either

OP posts:
bossykate · 08/01/2008 11:30

sssandy, you might want to read that post back and see how might sound to someone who didn't marry a provider

TrinityRhinosDhWonHerAnIPOD · 08/01/2008 11:30

well thats not soemthing I need to hear on the news
dd2 is 2 and a half and has been going to a nursey since she was 14 months
maybe thats why shes pulling her hair out...
although she loves the place, all the workers know her, I can see they do.

SueBaroo · 08/01/2008 11:30

Both appear to be saying that a child needs to feel loved and secure. Is the difference between the 'one person who knows them well' and 'nursery'. Because even the children I know who go to nursery still have someone caring for them at home who knows them well.

The JG quote gets my back up, but I'm in a bit of an arsey mood today anyway. Not in the right frame of mind to be told I'm foolish and largely inconsequential in terms of the choices I've made. Raspberries to her.